“So how do you explain the tolerance of Slavery in the Union states, if ‘ending slavery’ was the purpose of the war?”
If you go back an re-read the post to which you replied, you will find that I never said that was the purpose of the war. My exact words were “Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but he also wanted to preserve the union even more, no matter the cost.”
“When one looks at the History objectively, one realizes that Lincoln was less the hero, and more the monster than we have been led to believe.”
History is complex. It is difficult to understand and not allow preconceptions to taint one’s perspective.
Lincoln was a human being. Like almost all human beings, he had flaws. He also may have changed his mind on occasions, or come to a new understanding about certain matters.
I think Bush Jr. was an honorable president who made a choice to wage war in Iraq with the right motives. But I think the facts of the matter later showed that the risks from Saddam Hussein were overblown. And maybe that was due to his saber rattling. And also I think Bush had handlers who knew how to manipulate him to achieve the desired outcome which was war. And that war has turned out to be a disaster, mostly because the keys to the kingdom changed hands.
Lincoln may have had similar motives to “save the Union”. While I agree that there can be a moral case for secession, there is not ALWAYS a moral case in every case. In some cases it represents insurrection. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges this ability as part of the natural right of self-government.
On the other hand, would you be willing to accommodate the Black Lives Matter call for areas where their followers can practice “self government” by not allowing law enforcement inside?
The very document you cited explicitly confirms that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. He just considered saving the Union to be more important. That is essentially what I said earlier.
“You do realize that Slavery continued in the North for longer than it did in the South? ... Yeah, that was kinda hypocritical, don’t you think?”
I’m sure there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around. There were Christian abolitionists arguing to end slavery before this nation was even formed. In trying to address the issue, which is something that has existed nearly everywhere since the dawn of man, Christian leaders consulted the Bible. They came to various conclusions. On the one hand, both the Old and New Testaments at the very least allow for the existence of slavery. It is not treated as innately evil like many proscribed things are. God had no problem telling all nations that their idolatry was abominable. Yet He allowed slavery to exist in the legal system He designed for Israel. And His apostles did not go around stirring up slaves to revolt or commanding their masters to free them.
So Christian leaders were divided over slavery in America (”the land of the free”). But they almost universally either preached the treating of slaves kindly, or the end of slavery altogether. Almost none were saying that blacks ought to be tortured, lynched for non-capital crimes (according to God’s laws), kidnapped from their home lands, sexually abused, or otherwise treated as sub-human. But, make no mistake, slavery was abolished in the US because Christians saw it as their Christian duty to do so.
Only God knows what would have happened if the Civil War had not been fought. I think that slavery would have been abolished eventually even if the war never happened. But that is merely an opinion.
Slavery is a hot button issue that is difficult for many people to discuss rationally or objectively. And attempting to do so causes some to feel that the very act of rational discussion is egregious because it is like Nazi’s discussing the practicality of turning Jewish bodies into lampshades. But at risk of that, I think it is wise to ask WHY God did not absolutely prohibit slavery. In that context, I would point out that the legal system God gave Israel did not have prisons. Can you imagine the abolition of prisons?
It is also interesting to see how God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery before becoming a powerful ruler. Later, the whole nation of Israel became slaves to the Egyptians. And God provided for reparations to them from the Egyptians for their unpaid labor. At the same time, He led the Israelites out of Egypt to a different land.
In the case of Joseph, God gave him wisdom which he shared with his brothers who betrayed him, that they “meant it for evil, but God meant it for good”. Similarly, blacks in this nation, in spite of the lasting consequences of slavery on them, are fortunate to have been born in the greatest nation on the planet, ever. And, while the slave trade that brought their ancestors here was a great evil, God worked it out for the good of the blacks who are here today because of slavery.
Was the Civil War unfair to some people. Sure. Was the slave trade unfair to some people. Of course. Are there repercussions today that are unfair for blacks? Yes. Whites? Yes, also. Is it fair that, as a conservative I have almost no representation in the federal government? No. But I would not trade places with someone born in another country. There are a lot of unfair things. There are many injustices in the world. The question is: What are we going to do about them?
Especially when it is in his, and his backer's economic interest for him to change his mind.
Lincoln without a dog in the fight says Independence is a "Sacred Right". Lincoln with massive losses of Federal Revenue from uncollected Tariff's and Lincoln with Wealthy and Powerful Financial backers from the North Eastern Industries jumping up and down on his back, quickly decides that maybe "Independence" is not so much of a "Sacred Right" as he previously believed.
Lincoln may have had similar motives to “save the Union”. While I agree that there can be a moral case for secession, there is not ALWAYS a moral case in every case.
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people who want independence to decide that they should have it.
,That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Pretty clear to me. Didn't see any conditions stipulated in that document.
In some cases it represents insurrection.
The population of the South which demanded independence was larger than all the original 13 colonies combined. I'm sure the British thought the colonies were engaging in "insurrection" too, but our system of governance is based on the idea that people have a right to become independent of a government that no longer suits their interests.
I’m sure there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
It is not a question of other people being hypocrites. Bad behavior on their part does not justify bad behavior on Lincoln's part, and since Lincoln was the sole man responsible for initiating and continuing the war, it is his hypocrisy and that of his invaders which should be focused upon.
But, make no mistake, slavery was abolished in the US because Christians saw it as their Christian duty to do so.
That is the narrative that the Union Government, having killed 750,000 people, having destroyed half a nation's worth of economic wealth, and having caused a massive and lingering social disaster, would prefer that your believe. It is not however, the truth.
Slavery was ended for the purpose of making good on a war tactic threat. It was a "Dirty Harry "Make my day" " event. Lincoln thought that if he could threaten them with the loss of their capital and the core of their economic engine, he could intimidate them into capitulating. They fought on, and he made good on the threat he had made.
Again, if slavery was ended for "Christian" and "Moral" reasons, that "ending" would have started with the Union Slave States, not the enemy slave states. Here is what the London Spectator said about the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
The Government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict....The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.
That is the most accurate summation of it I have ever seen.